The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission has announced a voluntary recall of the following consumer product because the product could cause personal injuries or death due to product liability. Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

Name of product:

BicycleHydraulic Disc Brakes

Hazard:

The brakes can fail in low temperatures, posing a collision hazard.

Consumer Contact:

Magura USA at (800) 448-3876 from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. CT Monday through Friday or online at http://www.maguradirect.com and click on “Recall Information.”

Recall Details

Units

2,800

Description

MaguraMT 6 and MT 8 hydraulic disc brakes are being recalled. The brakes consist of a brake lever and master cylinder that attach to the handlebars, a hose that runs between the master cylinder and the caliper which attaches to the rear wheel.

The MT 6 brake system is black and silver. The MT 8 brake system is black and red. Both brake systems have the Magura logo and letters “MT” on the master cylinder, and the word “Magura” on the caliper. The word “Six” is on the brake lever of the MT 6 and the word “Eight” is on the brake lever of the MT 8.

MT 6 and MT 8 brake systems with manufacture date codes between March 1, 2011 and May 31, 2012 are being recalled. A date code in format Y/MM/DD between 10301 and 20531 is located on the caliper. Additionally, all MT 6 and MT 8 brake systems without date codes are being recalled.

Incidents/Injuries

No incidents or injuries have been reported.

Remedy

Consumers should immediately stop riding bicycles equipped with the recalled brakes and contactMagura USA for a free repair.

Sold at

Bicycle retailers and distributors in the U.S. between January 2011 and March 2013 for between $269 to $379.

Getting unemployment benefits after you voluntarily terminate your employment can be difficult. Many people who voluntarily quit will not be entitled to unemployment benefits. You will only receive unemployment benefits after you quit if you quit “for good cause attributable to the employer.”

The key words in that rule are “good cause” and “attributable to the employer.” Let’s take them in reverse. Both conditions have to be met in order to receive unemployment benefits after a voluntary quit.

“Attributable to the employer” means what it says. Something about your employment or your employer must cause you to quit or you don’t get unemployment benefits. Employees are usually free to quit anytime they want, but unemployment benefits will be denied unless the reason for quitting is connected to the employer.

“Good cause” means that you have to have a good reason for quitting. You cannot quit because the employee in the cubicle next to you refuses to remove his Minnesota Vikings pennant and expect to receive unemployment benefits. And what an employee thinks is good cause for quitting may not be determined to be good cause by Iowa Workforce Development when the unemployment benefits claims is reviewed, so think carefully about why you’re quitting before doing so, unless unemployment benefits aren’t important to you.

Many voluntary quit unemployment benefit cases end in favor of the employer because the employee either could not prove good cause for quitting or could not tie that cause into the employer. Unemployment benefit cases require legal analysis of state statutes, Iowa Workforce Development regulations, and court decisions. I can help you with any employment law or labor law questions that you might have. Please feel free to contact me for a free initial consultation about employment law or labor law.

The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission has announced a voluntary recall of the following consumer product because the product could cause personal injuries or death due to product liability. Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

Name of product:

LED Light Bulbs

Hazard:

The bulbs can overheat during use, posing a fire hazard.

Consumer Contact:

Lighting Science Group toll free at (855) 574-2533 from 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. ET Monday through Friday, or online at http://www.lsgc.com/recall

Units

About 554,000

Description

The 120-volt LED bulbs, sold as 6- 8- and 9-watt bulbs (equivalent to 40 or 50 watts), were marketed under the brand names Definity, EcoSmart, Sylvania and Westinghouse. The model numbers A19, G25 and R20/PAR20 are found on the packaging and on the light-colored circular neck above the base of the bulb where the date code is also printed. The date code reflects the week and year of manufacture; for example date code L4010 was produced during the 40th week of 2010. The date codes listed below may have the letters “CH ” or “MX ” at the end. For example, date code L4010 can also appear as L4010CH or L4010MX. The date codes are:

L4010

L4110

L4210

L4310

L4410

L4510

L4610

L4710

L4810

L4910

L5010

L5110

L5210

L0111

L0211

L0311

L0411

L0511

L0611

L0711

L0811

L0911

L1011

L1111

Incidents/Injuries

Lighting Science Group is aware of 68 incidents of product failures, eight of which were accompanied by visible smoke or fire conditions. The incidents include damage to light sockets, melted fixtures, burned rugs/carpet/ floors, damage to a circuit and to a lamp. There have been no reports of personal injuries.

Remedy

Consumers should immediately remove the bulbs from sockets and lamps and contact Light Science Group for replacement bulbs.

Sold at

Various retailers including hardware and lighting and electrical supply stores.

Importer

Lighting Science Group Corporation, of Satellite Beach, Fla.

Manufacturer

Citizen Electronics and Lighting Science Group

Manufactured in

China (with a small number of products having final assembly in Florida or Mexico)

The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission has announced a voluntary recall of the following consumer product because the product could cause personal injuries or death due to product liability. Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

Name of product:

Nu-Flame Vivo and Vivido wall mounted fireplaces

Hazard:

Overfilling or spilling fuel while attempting to refill fireplace fuel cups while in place can lead to the fuel cup being ejected from the fireplace, posing a fire or burn hazard to the user, bystanders or items nearby.

Consumer Contact:

Bluworld/Nu-Flame toll-free at (888) 499-5433 from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. ET Monday through Friday or online at www.nu-flame.com and click on the scrolling text for more information.

Recall Details

Description

The wall mounted fireplaces have a 2 or 3.4 liter capacity burner fuel cup with an ethanol open flame behind a tempered glass shield with a metal curved base and a black metal backboard. Both wall mounted fireplaces measure about 20-inches in height. The Vivo NF-W4VIO model measures about 39-inches in width and the Vivido NF-W3VIO model fireplace measures 26-inches in width. The model number is printed on the product packaging.

Incidents/Injuries

The firm has received two reports of property damage to clothing, bedding and a pet bed. No injuries have been reported.

Remedy

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled wall mounted fireplace and contact Blueworld/Nu-Flame to receive a free repair. All known purchasers have been notified of the recall.

Sold at

On-line retailers including Amazon.com, Overstock.com and DirectBuy.com from November 2011 through December 2012 for between $300 and $400 for the Vivo model and between $200 and $300 for the Vivido model.

Sellers or distributors of products can be liable under various products liability theories for personal injury or wrongful death. One main category of products liability is “defective design.” Under a defective design theory, a defendant can be liable for putting a product on the market that has one or more design flaws.

To succeed on a theory of defective design, a plaintiff has to prove that the product was defective at the time it left the defendant’s control. A plaintiff also has to establish that a “reasonable alternative safer design” could have been practically adopted at the time of the product’s sale or distribution that would have reduced or avoided the foreseeable risks of harm posed by the product. Additionally, the plaintiff must show that the omission of the alternative design rendered the product not reasonably safe and that the alternative design would have reduced or prevented the plaintiff’s harm.

As you can imagine, defective design cases are hotly contested on the issue of reasonable alternative design. A defective design lawsuit fails without proof of an alternative design. That proof usually comes through qualified experts, like engineers.

In assessing whether an alternative safer design existed, the Iowa Supreme Court has instructed litigants to consider many factors, including the magnitude and probability of the foreseeable risks of harm; the instructions and warnings accompanying the product; consumer expectations about product performance and the dangers attendant to use of the product, including expectations arising from product portrayal and marketing; whether the risk presented by the product is open and obvious to, or generally known by, foreseeable users; the technological feasibility and practicality of the alternative design; whether the alternative design could be implemented at a reasonable cost; the relative advantages and disadvantages of the product as designed and as it alternatively could have been designed; the likely effects of the alternative design on product longevity, maintenance, repair, aesthetics, and on the efficiency and utility of the product; the range of consumer choice among similar products, with and without the alternative design; the overall safety of the product with and without the alternative design and whether the alternative design would introduce other dangers of equal or greater magnitude; and custom and practice in the industry and how the defendant’s design compares with other competing products in actual use.

It happens. People get hurt or become ill. Employers sometimes become concerned that the illness or injury will prevent the employee from fully doing the job. So what employment law rights under the American With Disabilities Act do employees have in such situations?

Employers may insist that current employees undergo medical examinations or inquiries only to analyze whether an illness or injury prevents the employee from performing the essential functions of the job. That right is not automatic — Employers must establish that the examination or inquiry is job-related and justified by business necessity. Testing solely for the sake of testing is not legal.

Also illegal is testing that is designed to determine whether a person is disabled. Even if the employer is allowed to conduct an examination or inquiry, that must go no farther than reviewing whether the employee’s physical or mental symptoms affect the employee’s ability to perform the essential functions of the job. A medical examination or inquiry that goes deeper, and starts looking into the cause of the symptoms, i.e., the disability itself, is arguably unlawful and in violation of the Americans With Disabilities Act.

Employers can legally fire employees who refuse a lawful, justified request for a medical examination or inquiry. So if your employer insists that you submit to a medical examination or inquiry, think carefully before refusing. I recommend that, before deciding whether or not to refuse the employer’s request, employees seek additional information from the employer about job-relatedness and business necessity and how the examination or inquiry will be connected to performance of essential job functions. Then, if the employee decides that the test is appropriate, further steps should be taken to ensure that the test is limited to the permitted inquiries and does not unduly infringe upon the employee’s privacy rights.

Here’s an important point — The law and rules concerning employee medical examinations and inquiries apply to all employees, not just employees who may have a disability. Employers thus violate the law when they illegally demand a medical examination or inquiry of any employee, even if the employee is not disabled. This is a rare instance in which the Americans With Disabilities Act applies across the board to all employees, disabled or nondisabled.

The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission has announced a voluntary recall of the following consumer product because the product could cause personal injuries or death due to product liability. Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

Name of product:

Ariens Snow-Thro 24 inch snow blower

Hazard:

The snow blower’s carburetor bowl nut can allow gas to escape from the unit.

Recall Details

Units

About 5,400

Description

The recalled snow blower is 24-inches wide and comes in orange with black. Recalled products have the model number 920014 and serial numbers ranging from 100,000 through 119,039 that can be found on an Ariens-brand label on the lower back panel of the product with the warranty code. There is also a Briggs & Stratton engine model number 13D1370110 F1 labeled on the side of the engine with the serial number range from 12053000000 through 12071699999. Engines with a circular black marker dot located on the right side of the engine base, below the electric starter and just above the oil drain plug, have already been inspected and are not part of this recall.

Incidents/Injuries

None reported.

Remedy

Consumers should immediately stop using the product and return it to an authorized Briggs & Stratton dealer for a repair.

Sold at

Ariens dealers and The Home Depot nationwide from August through September 2012 for about $800 to $1000.